There are exceptions to every rule, we all know that, but it seems on Armageddon the exception to the rule gets looked down upon for some reason, or at least that's the feeling I'm getting from the recent postings on the RAT thread.

I like the richness of our documentation, I like a character that is real and flawed, more. If there weren't exceptions, there wouldn't be half-breeds or muls or even half-giants. There wouldn't be city elves or city humans. There wouldn't be people who rebelled against the Sorceror Kings or murdered their bosses, there wouldn't be life sworn defecting, there wouldn't be turn coats. The funny thing is, that I know certain people complaining about the amount of exceptions are exceptions themselves. Heh.

I've personally never met a one dimensional character and hope never to play one. I like flawed, I like characters who think A, get slapped in the life with A and get a taste of having to deal with their own limitations. I also like those hard core perfect stereotypes that know their place in the world and aren't afraid to show it (provided they live in a place where it can be openly displayed). I like characters whose public face is nothing like their inner core and it takes getting to know them to really see what they're really like.

You're the rule until you're not, you're the exception until you're not but you write the background and the quirks, if your character isn't living and experiencing things that are life changing, I see that as a stagnant personality, not a "real" person.

You can't tell me that if your mate of five years who you are devoted to undyingly suddenly turns out to be a magicker you're gonna stay a magicker hater to the same degree, you might be driven to murder, you might never trust anyone who reminds you of them, you might suddenly become a magicker lover.

Gimme flawed any day - Just have a reason for it.

Logged

I'm taking an indeterminate break from Armageddon for the foreseeable future and thereby am not available for mudsex.

Quote

In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.

The funny thing is, that I know certain people complaining about the amount of exceptions are exceptions themselves. Heh.

At the end of the day, this is what's important. You have to look at your PC and be honest with yourself - why are you playing a snowflake, and why would your character act as they are? I don't like seeing 'shades of grey' get thrown around in context to Zalanthas - morally speaking, fuck yes, everything is black and white. Elves are thieves, dwarves are kind of stupid, and a magicker will turn you into a gortok if you piss in their soup.

It's less "would you hang out with an elf" and more "would you hang out with someone you know is a thief?" sort of thing. I don't have an issue with snowflake PCs when they're just that, snowflake PCs. When (and in some cases it has) the exception becomes the rule, that's when I start getting grumpy.

There are exceptions to every rule, we all know that, but it seems on Armageddon the exception to the rule gets looked down upon for some reason, or at least that's the feeling I'm getting from the recent postings on the RAT thread.

It depends on the rule itself. If you mean the rule being the documentation, then yes, people should play to the documentation far more often than they play the exception to it. However, the exceptions you refer to seem to be different. I gleaned that from your next paragraph, which was a little confusing overall since it did not seem to be related to real exceptions to the documentation (I'll break it down to explain why):

Quote

I like the richness of our documentation,

Agreed.

Quote

I like a character that is real and flawed, more.

This is where I disagree. The way you are wording this implies that a real and flawed character is something that exists in the absence of rich documentation. I've seen plenty of people play to the documentation to a "T" and have awesomely real and flawed PCs at the same time. If that's not what you meant, cool!

Quote

If there weren't exceptions, there wouldn't be half-breeds

These are exceptions to the racial norm of the entire makeup of the Known World--however, they are not exceptions to their racial documentation or the overall game's documentation. Breeds exist. There is documentation to support their existence. There are fewer of them overall than many of the other races, but this doesn't make someone playing a breed "the exception to the rule" that people complain about when they complain about "snowflakes."

Quote

or muls

Same as above.

Quote

or even half-giants.

Ditto.

Quote

There wouldn't be city elves

Ditto again.

Quote

or city humans.

Disagree. These are the most predominate race in Zalanthas. Playing one (by default) means you are playing the racial norm, if that's what you're referring to here.

Quote

There wouldn't be people who rebelled against the Sorceror Kings

These people may be an exception to the majority and an exception to the common documentation (MOST people are okay with the status quo or at least aren't actively trying to rebel against it). Consequently, it is dealt with IC by the powers that be.

Quote

or murdered their bosses,

Murder, corruption, betrayal. Keywords there would be "betrayal" followed quickly by "murder." This is an exception to loyalty and peacefulness but hardly an exception to the overall gameworld's documentation.

Quote

there wouldn't be life sworn defecting, there wouldn't be turn coats.

See above.

Quote

The funny thing is, that I know certain people complaining about the amount of exceptions are exceptions themselves. Heh.

Well, if you're referring to all of the things you mentioned above as "exceptions" then yes. It would surprising if we had no elves, muls, half-giants, breeds, rebels, etc, because everyone would be playing the same thing. The game would be boring as all hell. If those things you mentioned are the exceptions you think people are playing (or complaining about) then everyone is guilty to some extent.

Quote

I've personally never met a one dimensional character and hope never to play one. I like flawed, I like characters who think A, get slapped in the life with A and get a taste of having to deal with their own limitations. I also like those hard core perfect stereotypes that know their place in the world and aren't afraid to show it (provided they live in a place where it can be openly displayed). I like characters whose public face is nothing like their inner core and it takes getting to know them to really see what they're really like.

I agree with all of those things.

Quote

You're the rule until you're not, you're the exception until you're not but you write the background and the quirks, if your character isn't living and experiencing things that are life changing, I see that as a stagnant personality, not a "real" person.

I agree for the most part, yes.

Quote

You can't tell me that if your mate of five years who you are devoted to undyingly suddenly turns out to be a magicker you're gonna stay a magicker hater to the same degree, you might be driven to murder, you might never trust anyone who reminds you of them, you might suddenly become a magicker lover.

Gimme flawed any day - Just have a reason for it.

Agreed, there are many possible reactions there.

I pointed out all of the exception stuff above because that isn't the kind of exception stuff we generally mean on the staff side when we refer to people "playing the exception to the rule."

Things I'd see as bad exceptions:

A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no issue with magick whatsoever, regardless of background and life experience.A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no issue with screwing individuals of another race, regardless of background and life experience.A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that have no other prejudices that would be normal for their place of origin, race, economic background, etc.A PC that routinely plays against the established documentation for their tribe.A player that (frequently, or on a regular basis) plays PCs that play against the established documentation for any organization. (This is more because it sucks for us having to deal with them; if you can set a watch by the mistakes they make either out of ignorance or intent, it can be an issue.)A dwarf that shows little to no interest in pursuing his or her focus.An elf that more or less acts just like a human.An elf that rides (or a half-elf that looks like an elf, riding).A half-giant that is intelligent and wise.A half-elf that doesn't roleplay the convoluted nature that is their very existence.

The closer one comes to any of these things, the more it is likely to be labeled as a bad exception. If every PC you play is "an exception" to something or other that is commonly accepted as "the documentation," then these should be labeled as bad exceptions, too.

The way you are wording this implies that a real and flawed character is something that exists in the absence of rich documentation. I've seen plenty of people play to the documentation to a "T" and have awesomely real and flawed PCs at the same time. If that's not what you meant, cool!

Quote

These are exceptions to the racial norm of the entire makeup of the Known World--however, they are not exceptions to their racial documentation or the overall game's documentation. Breeds exist. There is documentation to support their existence. There are fewer of them overall than many of the other races, but this doesn't make someone playing a breed "the exception to the rule" that people complain about when they complain about "snowflakes."

I've seen breeds be extremely social and outwardly proud. Not so much as a shred of the turmoil they're supposed to be feeling inside. That's just one exception to that breed rule that goes against the documents. Most breeds I've seen do not fit that persona, and that goes from my character knowing them, not judging a book by it's cover.

By using the breeds as examples of exception to the rule, it was an attempt to show that at one time, some elf/human decided a human/elf was something they had to have and took it, that's how that mingling started, an exception to the races don't mingle rule. Made a nice breed. SINCE that original hypothetic time, that is no longer the only way it happens. Now there is that fever of interracial couples. While still appalling at large it happens. Someone you know, or may not know openly, is a sharp lover.

Anything in RED is documentation:

Quote

muls

Quote

It is quite likely that muls did not exist prior to the Empire of Man, when the earliest known experimentation of this nature was recorded

The first ever mul was bred? The docs don't lead me to believe they were. It makes more sense to me that some human and dwarf got it on, bred a super race wich was promptly observed and exploited by the powers that be. An exception to the rule at the time.

Quote

half-giants.

Quote

Created by some magick far in the past, the race of half-giants were the result of special cross-breeding of humans and the giants rumored to inhabit the islands in the Sea of Eternal Dust.

Again, not having existed before, their creation was a double whamy in exception: First human/giant (ouch) - Second: Magickal in nature yet openly and readily accepted and even coveted by their brawn by MOST of the moden population.... who supposedly fears magicks....

Quote

city elves

Quote

Descended from (or currently a member of) any one of the many desert tribes

If all elves originated in the desert, at some point, an exception to that broke off and went into the city and evolved into a different breed. Ann exception to the rule at the time.

Quote

or city humans.

Quote

Disagree. These are the most predominate race in Zalanthas. Playing one (by default) means you are playing the racial norm, if that's what you're referring to here.

Like elves, before there was civilization, humans had to roam the sands, the caveman of Zalanthas if you will. At some point, tribal, sand dwelling humans, broke off and made a city.

Quote

I pointed out all of the exception stuff above because that isn't the kind of exception stuff we generally mean on the staff side when we refer to people "playing the exception to the rule."

It's the player side that's whining about how bad it is. I trust that Staff would do something about it if someone was playing an exception detrimentally.

Quote

Things I'd see as bad exceptions

I guess don't see any exception being bad, you either have a character reason for that exception or it's not an in character thing to do. I always explain in character reports why my chars do/feel things that are against the norm. I would hope those playing any exceptions would as well.

I heart you Nyr, please don't dock my karma for playing exceptions!

Logged

I'm taking an indeterminate break from Armageddon for the foreseeable future and thereby am not available for mudsex.

Quote

In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.

Exceptions to the rule are bad because sometimes new players don't realize that what they might be seeing is/are exceptions. In a worse case scenario someone will point back at an exception in the past and say "well they did it, why can't I?" The main problem is when the exception then becomes the rule.

I'm just irked by regular, every day things: people flirting/kanking with another race. People being kicked from a House/Tribe/Circle and are not regarded with any disdain. Certain races not playing accordingly. Trusting someone (of another race) completely after having met the other person only three times, etc, etc.

I'm aware there are always reasons behind someone's actions, but having seen it first hand in game, sometimes there simply are no (obvious) reasons.

I'm NOT complaining, just pointing out small little things I've noticed and just mentioned them all in a row simply we have a thread particularly about this subject (which branched from my RAT). I still adore this game and I still have much to learn to comprehend this game fully.

I'm guilty sometimes. I do things I c though. I do agree the newer the player, the less overall knowledge of the game they will have and therefore may not be playing an exception, but rather be playing against the docs. Not out of spite, but just out of lack of knowledge. They can acquire this knowledge through ostracism ic or simply being told ooc. Realistically its a combination of both that will prevail. It is good to strangle what is and what is not an acceptable norm because people will bend the rules anyway. Somethings are just ridiculous IC and go so far against the docs, but there are ic solutions to those issues too.

What would happen to an elf if they were riding a mount. It could be dealt with IC. Big bad D elf, or c elf named Shaquita could and should come by and wack em dead. "What an embarrassment it is to see an elf riding a mount" they would say "I did what was best for all of us." Go ahead make another riding elf I dare ya!! The person that falls in love with a magicker or another race may be ditched by their friends...maybe even plotted against betrayed and murdered. Elves aren't evil, but if you are human and dumb enough to go into the desert with two elves you don't know, you may be quickly sent to drov. (thanks for your boots)

Its good to keep the reigns tight. How does the sang go "Give an inch and they take a mile.

I remember this discussion happening over and over throughout the years.

It is a good one to have.

Here is my short of it: If everyone plays the 'exception' then the 'exception' becomes the de facto standard and that is detrimental to the environment / atmosphere of the game.

The inclination of many players is to play the exception because it is easier for them (especially when it comes to playing some of the different races with different mentalities that can be difficult to grasp or comprehend at first blush) so players make allowances for 'playability' without realizing that they are lessening the environment for everyone else. Other players just emulate what they saw "well known" and "famous" (aka, long-lived) characters doing. Sometimes these long lived characters are, unfortunately, playing the exception so it spawns a whole bunch of exception based archtypes.

The playerbase follows a behavioural trend whereby more and more people play the 'exception' which really becomes the norm until the exception becomes so prominent that other players get so bothered by it that they post about it. At that point there is a great discussion (usually heated - with players defending the exception for playability reasons or that being the exception makes a complex character - a point I do believe holds any validity since a character can also be incredibly complex by adhering to the standard) followed by a general reset in the game of behaviour back to the documented standard.

Some common themes:

Racism has a fairly short cycle since it is a lot easier to 'like' other races when there are few players on. Players make little allowances so that they interact without constant struggle and hatred.

Anti-magick fear is another short cycle. As more and more players play magickal roles that exposes more of the playerbase to magickers. This leads to a casual familiarity and a loss of fear which, in turn, bleeds into character reaction until it gets pointed out.

Specific behaviour within races that breaks with documented behaviour standards tends to have a longer cycle since most players play humans. This leads to a smaller exposure to how these races are being played and if most players are being the 'exception' it doesn't really show since the interactions are so uncommon. Typically, this particular discussion gets initiated after someone runs into a "smart" half-giant. A "tender" mul. Or a "too human" half-elf which they do not agree with. The ensuing discussion reveals broader tendencies and people realize that they are drifting away from the documentation as a whole.

Then, as a whole, the playerbase resets to where it -should- be. Note, the players -should- be following the documentation.

By using the breeds as examples of exception to the rule, it was an attempt to show that at one time, some elf/human decided a human/elf was something they had to have and took it, that's how that mingling started, an exception to the races don't mingle rule.

So your point is that since the documentation...allows for the exception...because the two races can have offspring together...and have had offspring together...and it happens rarely...(and in that same documentation it implies that most are the product of rape)...what? I don't get your point. You're pointing out a non-point.

Quote

Anything in RED is documentation:

Quote

muls

Quote

It is quite likely that muls did not exist prior to the Empire of Man, when the earliest known experimentation of this nature was recorded

The first ever mul was bred? The docs don't lead me to believe they were. It makes more sense to me that some human and dwarf got it on, bred a super race wich was promptly observed and exploited by the powers that be. An exception to the rule at the time.

The docs don't lead you to believe that the first muls were bred? Hell, the docs outright state that. I'll quote a bit from the docs here and bold the relevant points.

Quote from: the docs on muls

Muls are sterile crossbreeds of dwarves and men, bred almost solely by Templar slavers and Nobles for combat in the Arenas of Allanak and Tuluk. It is quite likely that muls did not exist prior to the Empire of Man, when the earliest known experimentation of this nature was recorded (and the depictions of muls are unmistakable, which collaborates the supposition that dwarves were used as slaves by the Empire).

So, recapping: muls are crossbreeds. They were/are bred by templars and nobles. There is idle speculation in the next sentence (more like a wink-wink nudge-nudge to the out-of-character reader) that it's quite likely that muls didn't exist prior to the Empire of Man. The opposite of "quite likely" is what you are suggesting: "it makes more sense to me that some human and a dwarf got it on." Welll, no. That's not what happened. That's a nice fairly tale, but it's not what happened. This is Zalanthas. It's brutal and full of prejudices and might equaling right, and there's not room for a dwarf and a human to bump uglies. Dwarves are low in number and used to be a slave race. They were slaves used for all sorts of purposes (still are where they're enslaved) and one of those would be forced breeding programs for muls. Anyway, no one knows how exactly the breeding stuff works or what goes into it unless they play in those Houses and find out for themselves.

So no. The docs don't lead you to believe that. You believe that on your own.

Quote

Quote

half-giants.

Quote

Created by some magick far in the past, the race of half-giants were the result of special cross-breeding of humans and the giants rumored to inhabit the islands in the Sea of Eternal Dust.

Again, not having existed before, their creation was a double whamy in exception: First human/giant (ouch) - Second: Magickal in nature yet openly and readily accepted and even coveted by their brawn by MOST of the moden population.... who supposedly fears magicks....

Yeah, those damn virtual and NPC half-giants, playing against the rule again. Wait, what is the rule? The rule is the documentation that was written by staff members. Okay, so what does it say? That these half-giants are also the results of special crossbreeding way in the past?

Do you also think that the average Zalanthan knows this? They do not, by the way. If they did, whatever. Some things happened so long ago that they are an accepted norm. If it were not so, it would be in the documentation...which, again, is written by staff. You are calling this an exception to the rule when it is not.

Quote

Quote

city elves

Quote

Descended from (or currently a member of) any one of the many desert tribes

If all elves originated in the desert, at some point, an exception to that broke off and went into the city and evolved into a different breed. Ann exception to the rule at the time.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. Things change over time...therefore...exceptions? Where's the ancient aliens guy when I need him? This is all stuff in the past, the ancient history of the game as far as you are concerned. At the time, it was the exception, now it is the norm. The current norm is the norm and enforced by the documentation which states the norm. Deviating from the current documentation with this as your reasoning (stuff changed in the ancient history of the game, therefore I should be able to disregard docs just the same way those virtual elves did) will result in a really rude awakening!

Quote

Quote

or city humans.

Quote

Disagree. These are the most predominate race in Zalanthas. Playing one (by default) means you are playing the racial norm, if that's what you're referring to here.

Like elves, before there was civilization, humans had to roam the sands, the caveman of Zalanthas if you will. At some point, tribal, sand dwelling humans, broke off and made a city.

At this point I'd be repeating myself so I won't.

Quote

Quote

I pointed out all of the exception stuff above because that isn't the kind of exception stuff we generally mean on the staff side when we refer to people "playing the exception to the rule."

It's the player side that's whining about how bad it is. I trust that Staff would do something about it if someone was playing an exception detrimentally.

The player side is whining about the stuff that is bad. The stuff I listed? That's bad.

Quote

Quote

Things I'd see as bad exceptions

I guess don't see any exception being bad, you either have a character reason for that exception or it's not an in character thing to do.

If you make habitual exceptions as indicated in my list, then you are not roleplaying in this game appropriately, and probably need to reassess what is appropriate to play and what is not appropriate to play. Please note the specific examples I listed. For instance, it is conceivable that one PC could have no magickal prejudices (exceptionally rare, but conceivable). I wouldn't think they're excellent unless they had an amazing reason for this, but there's some small amount of room for someone to do this and experience this from the other side of the fence. Once or twice, sure--maybe a few times over the course of many characters.

If it becomes a frequent occurrence...you're playing the exception to the rule.

I think it's also important to recognize that prejudice comes in a variety of forms:

Human Tuluki's near-obsessive sense of revulsion, dread, loathing, and terror at the prospect of being within close physical proximity to a gemmed mage (such as, sitting at the same bar in Luir's Outpost).

Allanak-mundane elf's loathing of the same mage, but not obsessive, and likely not as overt, due to having been exposed to gemmed mages for much of his life. Perhaps considering the gemmer as a potential victim for one of his scams, to teach said gemmer a lesson about who really runs things in Nak

Tribal human mage's approach to the same gemmed mage might be one of great distrust and filled with superstitious suspicion; the evil tektolnes is staring at everything in the gemmer's surroundings, through that damned cursed gem, and watching the tribal at this very moment.

A dwarf with a focus to build a flying ship would distrust and loathe mages too, but perhaps he might wonder if -this- particular mage is a whiran who he can trick or enslave or otherwise convince to help him teach the wagon how to fly. And then of course he'd kill the mage, because he's got what he wants from it and needs to destroy the evidence.

and so on and so forth. So not everyone needs to overly hate on it. It can be a matter of general distrust. Or fear. Or abject terror. Or superstition, or general loathing.

Logged

Talia said: Notice to all: Do not mess with Lizzie's GDB. She will cut you.Delirium said: Notice to all: do not mess with Lizzie's soap. She will cut you.

Hmm. Yes, consistent patterns of antidoc behavior are bad, but they're exactly what other players don't see at all. Especially ones with the degree of severity mentioned.

... indeed most of those exceptions of behavior you point out Nyr, aside from the half-giant one look like more what you might do on a new character than something lending itself to prolonged play. My early dwarf who wound up going very tangent to her focus, though I assure you it was more a gravity slingshot effect she was planning - that was a result of my inexperience rather than a result of how I want to play dwarves. (I need to use think and bio more to self-document, regardless.)

Most of the specific examples I gave were things that (for the most part) only a staffer could see and only a few players could guess at.

Therefore, leave it up to staff to determine whether someone is playing against the documentation in a detrimental way. If you notice a particular role not really adhering to particular docs, mention it to staff in an appropriate fashion, and we'll look into it.

The list Nyr posted earlier (plus a few more things I can think of) are actual exceptions to the documentation. But things like rebelling or deserting from a clan, disliking someone who got kicked out of something, or doing some of the things Nyr listed sporadically, aren't really exceptions so much as they are just general actions that PCs might have a good reason not to like.

This problem isn't really a playerbase problem that can be observed reliably. It seems more like a player-to-player issue. To use a common example, that one human you met that's into elves isn't a sign of people disregarding the documentation. Indeed, that player likely knows that his PC's fetish is weird and should be looked down upon. A sign of someone disregarding the documentation is when that player constantly apps humans that are into elves. That is something that is largely unknowable by the player base. The only thing we can really do in these instances is report to staff when we are playing characters like this, and when we notice characters like this, in a character report, so they can keep track of any bad patterns that might form.

The documentation is there to be followed. All that said, it is still possible to pick and choose which parts you'll follow, so long as you keep in mind that other PCs might "deal" with yours appropriately. If you choose to be ridiculous about it, either by ignoring very basic tenets, or ignoring the same things repeatedly, then it is left to staff to deal with.

So your point is that since the documentation...allows for the exception...because the two races can have offspring together...and have had offspring together...and it happens rarely...(and in that same documentation it implies that most are the product of rape)...what? I don't get your point.

My point is that at some point elves and humans didn't mix. At some point one raped the other and created a breed and it was looked down in disdain by both races. It still is, but breeds still exist, so it's still happening. MOST are a product of rape, not ALL. I guess details matter, if most, not all, are a product of rape, I wouldn't frown upon the ONE breed that has "Mummy and Daddy luved each other berry much" in his background. I'd still think it filthy though.

Quote

muls

Quote

It is quite likely that muls did not exist prior to the Empire of Man, when the earliest known experimentation of this nature was recorded

The first ever mul was bred? The docs don't lead me to believe they were. It makes more sense to me that some human and dwarf got it on, bred a super race wich was promptly observed and exploited by the powers that be. An exception to the rule at the time.

The docs don't lead you to believe that the first muls were bred? Hell, the docs outright state that. I'll quote a bit from the docs here and bold the relevant points.

Quote from: the docs on muls

Muls are sterile crossbreeds of dwarves and men, bred almost solely by Templar slavers and Nobles for combat in the Arenas of Allanak and Tuluk. It is quite likely that muls did not exist prior to the Empire of Man, when the earliest known experimentation of this nature was recorded (and the depictions of muls are unmistakable, which collaborates the supposition that dwarves were used as slaves by the Empire).

So, recapping: muls are crossbreeds. They were/are bred by templars and nobles. There is idle speculation in the next sentence (more like a wink-wink nudge-nudge to the out-of-character reader) that it's quite likely that muls didn't exist prior to the Empire of Man. The opposite of "quite likely" is what you are suggesting: "it makes more sense to me that some human and a dwarf got it on." Welll, no. That's not what happened. That's a nice fairly tale, but it's not what happened. This is Zalanthas. It's brutal and full of prejudices and might equaling right, and there's not room for a dwarf and a human to bump uglies. Dwarves are low in number and used to be a slave race. They were slaves used for all sorts of purposes (still are where they're enslaved) and one of those would be forced breeding programs for muls. Anyway, no one knows how exactly the breeding stuff works or what goes into it unless they play in those Houses and find out for themselves.

So no. The docs don't lead you to believe that. You believe that on your own.

Quote

I believe that because the word ALMOST led me to that conclusion. As in

Quote

crossbreeds of dwarves and men, bredalmost solely by

.

Maybe I just prefer a black and white documentation for guideline, where there is NO room for interpretation. Regardless, humans and dwarves bump uglies NOW as a result. Yuck.

Quote

Things I'd see as bad exceptions

I guess don't see any exception being bad, you either have a character reason for that exception or it's not an in character thing to do.

I'll rephrase. The things you posted as bad exceptions, which I agree with, directly reflect the player completely disregarding a very specific set of rules. There are no smart half-giants, but some are smarter than others, no? There are no riding elves, but some ride in argosies, no? Your character might hate/loathe magicks but might run to them if they're trying to save the life of someone they care about. Would a stupid dwarf abandon his or her focus if a smarter dwarf got them to take up his/her in return through manipulation? I just consider the what ifs and whys and do they make sense when it comes to exceptions. I've yet to see an exception in game that really doesn't make sense given the background that leads to it but I'm not staff or privy to everyone's backgrounds/experiences.

Quote

If you make habitual exceptions as indicated in my list, then you are not roleplaying in this game appropriately, and probably need to reassess what is appropriate to play and what is not appropriate to play. Please note the specific examples I listed. For instance, it is conceivable that one PC could have no magickal prejudices (exceptionally rare, but conceivable). I wouldn't think they're excellent unless they had an amazing reason for this, but there's some small amount of room for someone to do this and experience this from the other side of the fence. Once or twice, sure--maybe a few times over the course of many characters.

If it becomes a frequent occurrence...you're playing the exception to the rule.

I believe that because the word ALMOST led me to that conclusion. As in

Quote

Quotecrossbreeds of dwarves and men, bred almost solely by

Yes. If you read that one part and don't read the rest (or don't read the entirety in context), it would lead you to that point. It's like reading this blurb from help elf

Quote

Among elves, theft that relies on wit or nimble fingers is not a crime,per se, but more of a test of courage.

focusing on this point

Quote

theft that relies on wit or nimble fingers is not a crime

and then saying that you believe theft is not a crime. This is a hyperbolic example, but please understand that documentation is generally meant to be read in context rather than piecemeal.

Quote

Maybe I just prefer a black and white documentation for guideline, where there is NO room for interpretation.

We prefer the room for interpretation so that we don't have to spell everything out to every player.

Quote

Regardless, humans and dwarves bump uglies NOW as a result. Yuck.

I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole, but I would point out that you could say the same about anything in the gameworld if you make an "if A caused B, then Z" statement. "Tektolnes killed his father, which is why Tuluk is now free from occupation as a result." It's not necessarily false, but it's not strictly true, either.

Quote

There are no smart half-giants, but some are smarter than others, no?

Yes. However, the closer someone treads to human intelligence, the farther they tread from the established rut of the documentation for the race.

Quote

There are no riding elves, but some ride in argosies, no?

No. Someone playing this would be disregarding a specific set of rules, namely their documentation, and probably doesn't need to be playing an elf.

Quote

Your character might hate/loathe magicks but might run to them if they're trying to save the life of someone they care about.

Maybe. Entirely dependent on the situation. Is your character a Tuluki? This behavior is incredibly odd, then. Is your character an Allanaki? This behavior is more understandable.

Quote

Would a stupid dwarf abandon his or her focus if a smarter dwarf got them to take up his/her in return through manipulation?

Maybe. Entirely dependent on the foci involved.

Quote

I've yet to see an exception in game that really doesn't make sense given the background that leads to it

I've seen plenty, even with a background that leads to it. We try and guide such players away from that, or gently nudge them away from their exception-playing. If they don't get it, okay...well, we may not see why they deserve much trust from us in the form of more karma in the areas of "ability to roleplay," or "proven understanding of magick and its place in the game world," or "proven understanding of cultural and racial structures," wherever the deficiency may be. Having a background that leads to a PC playing an exception to a given norm doesn't necessarily make it okay. It does make it justified in the eyes of the player, but it is ultimately up to staff to determine whether it's out of line, as you indicate. If you do see documentation-breaking exceptions out there being played by PCs, it'd be great if you'd let us know about them. At that point, we can enforce the gameworld properly if need be and also provide education about the documentation to anyone that may need it (offender or offendee).

Players are not the roleplay police. That's the job of staff and it can be a very difficult one.

No. Someone playing this would be disregarding a specific set of rules, namely their documentation, and probably doesn't need to be playing an elf.

I've personally seen this a few times in the past. I also witnessed the elves bitchmoanwhinefightswear about it and the superior force them. In seeing this more than once, I only saw one elf stick with the docs.

Quote

I've yet to see an exception in game that really doesn't make sense given the background that leads to it.

Quote

I've seen plenty, even with a background that leads to it. We try and guide such players away from that, or gently nudge them away from their exception-playing. If they don't get it, okay...well, we may not see why they deserve much trust from us in the form of more karma in the areas of "ability to roleplay," or "proven understanding of magick and its place in the game world," or "proven understanding of cultural and racial structures," wherever the deficiency may be. Having a background that leads to a PC playing an exception to a given norm doesn't necessarily make it okay. It does make it justified in the eyes of the player, but it is ultimately up to staff to determine whether it's out of line, as you indicate. If you do see documentation-breaking exceptions out there being played by PCs, it'd be great if you'd let us know about them. At that point, we can enforce the gameworld properly if need be and also provide education about the documentation to anyone that may need it (offender or offendee).

Players are not the roleplay police. That's the job of staff and it can be a very difficult one.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It makes me happy in my feelings place. I like that staff is willing to educate rather than condemn.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that I wish people would stop bringing these jabs at on-going IG situations to the GDB and would instead use the request tool for their concerns on other people's roleplay. In the end we all have our personal opinions but it's the docs we must adhere to and staff's mindset that counts on what is and what isn't probable, impossible or likely.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 11:54:25 AM by ShaLeah »

Logged

I'm taking an indeterminate break from Armageddon for the foreseeable future and thereby am not available for mudsex.

Quote

In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.

First of all, whenever possible avoid playing "the exception". However despite trying we're all going to find ourselves in a position where what we're doing could be viewed as playing "the exception", especially if we choose to play things like magickers, criminals, elves, dwarves, outlaws, elves, thieves, rinthers, nobles, templars, nomads, etc. If I'm playing someone who's not a dirt poor common Amos, struggling to survive from the nearest civilization center, I'm going to be exceptional in some way big or small and be different from what I consider the "normal stereotype".

When playing the exception, whether it be slight or extreme, I think it's important to first know and recognize how I'm different and also how I'm "normal". To know what is normal I can read the documentation and/or have good examples in game that show me what's normal and what isn't. Once I know what's different about my character, instead of waiting for other PCs to treat me differently, it's best if I illustrate through my roleplay how the virtual world around me reacts and treats me (either by accepting me because I'm normal or rejecting/disproving of me because I'm different.)

I sometimes do this through emotes, like having vnpcs treat me differently. For example if I'm overly accepting of magickers: Lets say I'm hitting on some watery vivaduan babe at the bar. I could roleplay having the bartender serve me the wrong drink and/or over charge me. I could roleplay having a VNPC/NPC bump into me at the bar and "accidently" spill my drink. And I probably don't get mad at this, but if I did most of the bar might find some reason to run me out of there because I'm obviously a magicker lover.

I can also reinforce my differences from the normal through dialog. After my magicker babe friend leaves the tavern, I might decide some VNPC/NPC made some disparaging remarks (unheard except by my character), that I decide to respond to. I might lie or make some excuse saying that I'm not really a magicker lover, but I'm trying to get close to her so I can kill her in her sleep because she killed my family, and that everyone should just shut up and stop looking at me funny. And you know she'll understand if I have to lie to be with her because she's a magicker and familiar with the hate. However she'll probably thinks it's strange I'm attracted to her instead of some mundane gal, because nobody likes magickers (except maybe other magickers they are similar to). An other example of a situation is me talking to my buddy/business partner, and I say something like... "Well, I know that elves are thieves and liars and generally untrustworthy fellows, but who else is going to sell a bunch of independent grebbers like us a wagon? I don't care if it is double the normal price... we have the money and imagine what we can do with that wagon. Come on!" And my buddy might respond with..."You're an idiot! You can give him your money, but I'm not doing business with an elf. Especially not that one."

By being the first one to recognize that my behavior is abnormal and trying to make an excuse for it and/or showing how the virtual world doesn't accept my behavior (be it outright disproving, hesitation, suspicion or whatever) I help clue in other players that what I'm doing isn't exactly normal and give them the opportunity to accept or reject that behavior based on who they are (they might have exceptional values too, maybe they're secret magickers or just crazy). By being the first to recognize that I'm being divergent, when someone chooses to accept me, then they are also accepting my divergent behavior and acknowledging that it isn't normal and as a result, they too are divergent on some level.

Many times those playing "the exception" will ask and also expect "the world" to accept them for who they are and and be surprised when they are rejected for their divergent behavior/roleplay. This is where the problem with the exception Begins. When playing the exception, it's important to first realize and admit that one is different and recognize what the differences are. Next, then show through one's roleplay how the virtual world rejects or resists going along with one's irregular behavior (be it dating a magicker/elf or just being one). The problem ends someone playing the exception becomes just so likeable/successful/influential/powerful that others eventually choose to accept them and they end up becoming accepted as normal despite their differences to the documentation.

We all know the sterotypes: Most half-elves are insecure loners that seek the approval of others. Most elves are trying to scam you and can't be trusted. Most dwarves are either nuts and difficult to understand, or the most simple and straight forward people you'll ever meet. Most Half-giants are big and dumb. Most muls are mental cases and extremely dangerous. Most everyone is looking for some way to use or exploit you to their own ends. Just remember to recognize when and how you're playing someone different than the norm and when you're "the same" as the virtual world, then roleplay accordingly.

TL;DR - Don't play exceptions, but when you do, be the first one to realistically (determined by the docs) show/roleplay/represent how the virtual world around your character might disapprove. Whenever possible, (even when you're not playing the exception) be the first one to show/roleplay how you're "the same" as everyone else and how others might be different while reinforcing the norms/sterotypes of the virtual world around them.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It makes me happy in my feelings place. I like that staff is willing to educate rather than condemn.

It's not an either/or thing. If you're screwing up, you're screwing up--there's only so many nice ways to put that. As a hypothetical example: if we've responded over the course of much communication with ways to improve and a player continually finds more ways to keep doing the same thing (or even find a way to top off their previous "document interpretations" with a new and improved "interpretation" that is equally problematic), we will eventually say "okay, this is stupid. Stop."

“When I was a fighting man, the kettle-drums they beat;The people scattered gold-dust before my horse’s feet;But now I am a great king, the people hound my trackWith poison in my wine-cup, and daggers at my back.”